Canon consumes much less ink than Epson, so it's not fair to compare cost per ML directly.
Curious what you are basing the statement on, especially the fact you say it consumes "much less". I've owned both and don't see that. Are you assuming huge waste on clogs (which is overblown), or are you comparing only ink used on actual prints?
Yes indeed! The best Baryta paper out there, comes out perfectly from Canon 8300. Unlike Epson's which often mark it one way or another. Thought I was the only one to notice this, but I see I'm not alone.
IMHO no wide format machine is that good for cut sheets, period. Yes the Epson's are a bit easier than Canon's for this, but really once you go above 17", these printers are designed for Rolls, not Sheets.
I own both Large Format Epson's and Canons, and its the Canon that has become default for me. The no-clogging heads, which lead to SO much wasted paper ($) ink ($) and time on the Epson, has completely gone, and more than compensates for supposedly having to replace print heads. (not had to yet).
Love my Epson 11880 too for XL prints, but anything under that goes to the Canon.
Of course I've read on this forum others having trouble with specific papers marking on the Canons that print fine on the Epson's ... guess it depends on what paper's you like. I've run the old Harmon Gloss on my 11880 without any issues so guess it's something you can't blame on the brand, but the circumstance.
I also think loading 24x30 sheets in an Epson couldn't be easier (drop it in the printer, hit the button), and prefer sheets because any process to remove the curl of roll papers will leave micro cracks in the coating. sure with some large prints you don't have a choice, but sheets in the Epson is substantially easier than a Canon ... the straight through paper path is especially nice if you have a thick stiff paper.
As far as "no-clogging" heads, I wish the canon club would at least get the semantics right on this one, because the head definitely clogs (hint, there are
thousands of spare nozzles created specifically because of clogs). So admittedly the Canon design might make the process less in your face than an Epson, but bottom line it still clogs, and yes there is a high likelihood that some day (if you keep the printer long enough which canon is betting you won't) you'll have to replace a head. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but if you understand the design behind the two heads both make sense, and personally I believe the Epson produces a finer dither and in some images a visible difference in quality. (granted most images won't see that because they are uprezzed so the detail is already gone). I'm not knocking the Canon by saying this, image quality on current Canon's is outstanding but I've owned both, compared prints from both, and it's what I see.
I tried Canon for a few years, and like Jim I can sell both , but personally I prefer the Epson and really have no issues with clogging or excess ink waste with any of my current 5 Epson printers.
Not knocking the OP, congratulations on your new printer ... I"m sure you'll be delighted.
